15 states sue Biden-Harris administration for enrolling noncitizens in Obamacare

[bomberfox]

Why should criminal behavior be rewarded? If you want citizenship, you need to immigrate legally and follow the process. My family did.

Theres an entire backlog that nobody seems to want to deal with so we have so many people that are in this stateless limbo that is our court system. Ya had the best deal you were going to get. You coulda had it but ya had to pass.

 

[ClaraD]

Theres an entire backlog that nobody seems to want to deal with so we have so many people that are in this stateless limbo that is our court system.

U Visas have a backlog of nearly 70 months....just to get processed. It's incredible that a citizen has to wait years to bring a family member while a person applying for someone to work only waits 3 months. I however want to give a shoutout to the Biden administration, because they have actually decreased processing times from what they were under Trump by about 80%. A person who has a U visa (a crime victim) shouldn't have to wait a month to know they are approved....they certainly shouldn't have to wait 70 months.

 

[ClaraD]

If someone trespasses into my home, but they bring their kids, are you suggesting I should let the kids stay because they did not choose to trespass? Or let them all stay?

The border is not anyone's home...you don't own it, I don't own it...it is land and they don't stay there. They come, get their own place to live, pay rent, or a mortgage, raise their kids and pay their bills....your comparison is silly and uneducated. Yes, a person brought when they were 6 months old should be allowed to stay. They have no ties to their own country and have been here since 6 months after birth. We left them here and it would be a grievous wrong to deport a person brought here as a child...especially to a country where they could be kidnapped or murdered and often do not speak the language.
It is also a grievous wrong to deport someone who has been here for two or three decades working and is married to a US citizen and has children here (many DACA recepients)
My oldest step daughter (be careful how you tread here) is married to a police chief. She had DACA protection.. She has 5 kids with said police officer (who is a US citizen).
Should she be deported and her kids left without a parent? She doesn't remember her country and lost her TPS protection when she became an adult and married. So she applied for DACA and received it. She is in her 30s, went to college and the option here is if she is deported, her kids get welfare, lose a parent, etc..I thought you were about family values? Oh, that is just for white kids, born here...to hell with them brown babies that didn't have the luck of the draw.

btw, her husband filed for a waiver for her to get adjusted status based on the marriage...she is presently at the consulate in another country for her appointment....they have been married for 12 years. So, he applied for her 12 years ago...her appointment finally happened...and she was granted the waiver...

 

[Nickyjo]

The child is an illegal and should not become a citizen without following the legal process. If still a minor, his parents should follow the process. If now an adult, he can follow the process which means leaving the U.S. and entering legally. You don’t get to short cut the process period.

Agreed. But I still think it’s wiser and more practical to provide health care.

 

[ClaraD]

Agreed. But I still think it’s wiser and more practical to provide health care.

Most people thinking like he thinks are myopic in that they think there is an actual process the person can follow...there isn't.

 

[Ethel2]

Most people thinking like he thinks are myopic in that they think there is an actual process the person can follow...there isn't.

There actually is. These people could go home and get in line like those who want to enter here legally do.
However, although adults entering illegally should imo be deported asap children who entered illegally should not be held accountable for the mistakes that their adult parents (or relatives) made. It’s imo a separate category of illegal that requires a separate process.

 

[ClaraD]

There actually is. These people could go home and get in line like those who want to enter here legally do.
However, although adults entering illegally should imo be deported asap children who entered illegally should not be held accountable for the mistakes that their adult parents (or relatives) made. It’s imo a separate category of illegal that requires a separate process.

There actually isn't a status they can apply for. Once they have been here in an undocumented status, longer than 6 months, they automatically have a bar to their immigrating to the US.

 

[D_NATURED]

The people who decide to bring the entire family are generally fleeing violence....the ones fleeing without their kids are fleeing economic issues for the most part...unless they don't have a family yet.
El Salvador remains poor, yet people aren't fleeing here on near the level of other countries in Central America. Guess why? The country is safer than the US now. It was previously one of the most violent and everyone was fleeing. Like I said you have never lived it...so it is easy to say just stay there and to hell with you or the kids being murdered...just deal with it.

Clara, the "argument" that desperation mitigates our laws is not based in fact. We cannot have a nation of laws....unless you really need to break them. We can't have universal Healthcare for American citizens....unless you're a very sick foreigner. These are not arguments as much as utopian desires. The reality is, our country exists in reality where services cost money and disregarded laws WEAKEN justice.

This is not about how the left wants foreign people to have freedom, health and safety but the right doesn't. This is about who pays the real-world costs of Healthcare, of crime and of unchecked immigration. It's a discussion for mature Americans, not virtuous dreamers.

 

[Ethel2]

There actually isn't a status they can apply for. Once they have been here in an undocumented status, longer than 6 months, they automatically have a bar to their immigrating to the US.

They can’t leave then return? Not saying that should be necessary but if they leave the country and return and apply for asylum that would be a legal way for them to enter. Are you saying that isn’t possible?

 

[Ethel2]

Clara, the "argument" that desperation mitigates our laws is not based in fact. We cannot have a nation of laws....unless you really need to break them. We can't have universal Healthcare for American citizens....unless you're a very sick foreigner. These are not arguments as much as utopian desires. The reality is, our country exists in reality where services cost money and disregarded laws WEAKEN justice.

This is not about how the left wants foreign people to have freedom, health and safety but the right doesn't. This is about who pays the real-world costs of Healthcare, of crime and of unchecked immigration. It's a discussion for mature Americans, not virtuous dreamers.

You simply cannot refuse to stabilize sick people whether they are citizens or people here illegally. It’s unethical. Period.

 

[D_NATURED]

You simply cannot refuse to stabilize sick people whether they are citizens or people here illegally. It’s unethical. Period.

Ethics absent funds yield unethical results, not magical health, liberty and civility.

 

[Ethel2]

Ethics absent funds yield unethical results, not magical health, liberty and civility.

Wrong
I don’t know a single colleague who would refuse to treat an acutely ill patient because they couldn’t pay the bill. I’m not talking about patients with minor illnesses like colds. Do you think it’s ok to tell the parents of a six year old child with an earache that their child can’t be treated because they are here illegally? Or an asthmatic 12 year old-or an adult in congestive heart failure?
Never mind. That’s exactly what A-hole MAGATS want. Hell with the patients. Send them onto the street to die, right? It’s fine for the six year old to be in pain. After all, his parents brought him here illegally-right?
The results of treating these people are identical to the results of treating billionaires. They all get proper treatment.

 

[D_NATURED]

Wrong
I don’t know a single colleague who would refuse to treat an acutely ill patient because they couldn’t pay the bill.

I'm astounded by the naivete if not the deliberate obtuseness here. Your colleagues, if they work for a hospital, may have the freedom to give away some services but those supplies, those diagnostic tests, those human resources, that time do have a cost that someone must pay, you know. There is no magic, free health wand that they can wave over an entire emergency room. Furthermore, the more they give away to those who can't pay, the more they must externalize those costs to the ones who can. There is no free lunch and there sure as **** isn't any free surgery. Can we agree on that one obvious point?

So, forgive me for callously comprehending the fiscal big picture, even if it burdens your virtue signaling.

I’m not talking about patients with minor illnesses like colds. Do you think it’s ok to tell the parents of a six year old child with an earache that their child can’t be treated because they are here illegally?

Again, that's a blatant red herring. This debate is not about whether I want children to have earaches, it's about the sustainability of our medical system. All of the talk of ethics belies the fact that our system is for profit, it's not a make-the-world-a-better-place for the poor campaign. Charity is, and always has been, a part of medical ethics but where is the ethical benefit to me or anyone else when the cost of your generosity is the collapse of the system itself?

As a productive citizen and someone truly invested in this system, why must my access to healthcare be assured only if I can either achieve great wealth or fall into hopeless poverty? Maybe you'd rather see someone lose their house to an illness than see an already homeless person suffer. I'm sure the gutters are full of grateful recipients.

Or an asthmatic 12 year old-or an adult in congestive heart failure?
Never mind. That’s exactly what A-hole MAGATS want. Hell with the patients. Send them onto the street to die, right? It’s fine for the six year old to be in pain. After all, his parents brought him here illegally-right?

You create more strawmen than a Kansas corn-shucker on meth. Is the FACT that medicine isn't free to be completely ignored as you, in a fever of self-satisfied advocacy, list all of the indigent possibilities that could be cured in your head? I mean, what fact of economics could ever compete with the virtuous fantasy you've constructed? If dreams were dollars you could pay for everyone to be healed.

The results of treating these people are identical to the results of treating billionaires. They all get proper treatment.

That's a load of shit. When a billionaire gets treated, they don't have to charge me more when I get sick. How in the hell is that point still not being grasped?

 

[Ethel2]

I'm astounded by the naivete if not the deliberate obtuseness here. Your colleagues, if they work for a hospital, may have the freedom to give away some services but those supplies, those diagnostic tests, those human resources, that time do have a cost that someone must pay, you know. There is no magic, free health wand that they can wave over an entire emergency room. Furthermore, the more they give away to those who can't pay, the more they must externalize those costs to the ones who can. There is no free lunch and there sure as **** isn't any free surgery. Can we agree on that one obvious point?

So, forgive me for callously comprehending the fiscal big picture, even if it burdens your virtue signaling.



Again, that's a blatant red herring. This debate is not about whether I want children to have earaches, it's about the sustainability of our medical system. All of the talk of ethics belies the fact that our system is for profit, it's not a make-the-world-a-better-place for the poor campaign. Charity is, and always has been, a part of medical ethics but where is the ethical benefit to me or anyone else when the cost of your generosity is the collapse of the system itself?

As a productive citizen and someone truly invested in this system, why must my access to healthcare be assured only if I can either achieve great wealth or fall into hopeless poverty? Maybe you'd rather see someone lose their house to an illness than see an already homeless person suffer. I'm sure the gutters are full of grateful recipients.



You create more strawmen than a Kansas corn-shucker on meth. Is the FACT that medicine isn't free to be completely ignored as you, in a fever of self-satisfied advocacy, list all of the indigent possibilities that could be cured in your head? I mean, what fact of economics could ever compete with the virtuous fantasy you've constructed? If dreams were dollars you could pay for everyone to be healed.



That's a load of shit. When a billionaire gets treated, they don't have to charge me more when I get sick. How in the hell is that point still not being grasped?

You’ll have to pardon me if I stopped reading your MAGAT inspired rant after the first two sentences.
Here’s the bottom line: acutely ill people (people in pain, people who are at risk for more than mild illness etc) are going to get care whether you like it or not. Your only option to try to deny them care is to get the EMTALA laws changed. Those laws require emergency rooms to provide a medical evaluation and treatment necessary to stabilize patients before they are transferred or sent home. This is true regardless of the ability of the patient to pay the bill, regardless of their immigration status. Hospitals which don’t comply with these statutes face fines starting at $25,000.
It is indeed fortunate that people with your crappy attitude aren’t in charge.

https://stanfordhealthcare.org/content/dam/SHC/health-care-professionals/medical-staff/annual-physician-education/emtala.pdf

 

[ClaraD]

Clara, the "argument" that desperation mitigates our laws is not based in fact. We cannot have a nation of laws....unless you really need to break them. We can't have universal Healthcare for American citizens....unless you're a very sick foreigner. These are not arguments as much as utopian desires. The reality is, our country exists in reality where services cost money and disregarded laws WEAKEN justice.

This is not about how the left wants foreign people to have freedom, health and safety but the right doesn't. This is about who pays the real-world costs of Healthcare, of crime and of unchecked immigration. It's a discussion for mature Americans, not virtuous dreamers.

These are DACA recipients or legally documented immigrants. They have been contributing to our economy. None of them are recent arrivals. Also, if we actually respected our laws and provided a process not mired in delays that are decades long

 

[D_NATURED]

You’ll have to pardon me if I stopped reading your MAGAT inspired rant after the first two sentences.

I don't believe you did, though claiming as much has become a popular form of political bigotry on message boards. Shame on you, as someone who pretends to have a shred of intellectual credibility, if you did stop reading.

I've never voted for a republican in my life and never will as long as their platform remains hopelessly oppressive and dumb. I'll vote for Harris. So, the idea that my point is "MAGGAt inspired" is ugly invective and hypocrisy. But that's neither here or there. My observation that this debate is, ultimately, about money stands. Will you or won't you address that reality? If healthcare were truly free, nobody would care if it was given away to immigrants.

If your response is that morality matters more than money, you're a poor student of history and human nature. Even the moral must pay their bills at the end of the day. If your point is that I'm the asshole for pointing out your flaw, grow up. If your point is that people are suffering while others profit, you're just describing capitalism. We ain't changing any of it.

Here’s the bottom line: acutely ill people (people in pain, people who are at risk for more than mild illness etc) are going to get care whether you like it or not. Your only option to try to deny them care is to get the EMTALA laws changed. Those laws require emergency rooms to provide a medical evaluation and treatment necessary to stabilize patients before they are transferred or sent home. This is true regardless of the ability of the patient to pay the bill, regardless of their immigration status. Hospitals which don’t comply with these statutes face fines starting at $25,000.
It is indeed fortunate that people with your crappy attitude aren’t in charge.

If the law demands your charity, then it's not your and your "colleague's" magnanimity at play. So, why was it so important to pretend you were being virtuous? Rather than say you'd never refuse them care, why not say you're required to administer it? I think your ego is a factor in your adamant denial of my position.

I feel like I'm having a discussion with a moving target.

 

[D_NATURED]

These are DACA recipients or legally documented immigrants. They have been contributing to our economy. None of them are recent arrivals. Also, if we actually respected our laws and provided a process not mired in delays that are decades long

OK, but the undercurrent is free shit for non-citizens while actual citizens pay for it. I saw on the news that the wave of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into my city, Denver, cost Denver Health tens of millions of dollars in less than a year. Those weren't DACA anything. Must I be OK with the real world consequences of that? Is your sense of charity so large and perfect that it should drown the privileged voices of the tax payers? I can't state enough how wrong it feels to ignore the obvious toll the endless wave of desperate humanity has on our civil systems and the left, to their detriment, persist in the delusion that the country is better for it.

Please, as someone I respect, convince me it doesn't matter.

 

[Ethel2]

I don't believe you did, though claiming as much has become a popular form of political bigotry on message boards. Shame on you, as someone who pretends to have a shred of intellectual credibility, if you did stop reading.

I've never voted for a republican in my life and never will as long as their platform remains hopelessly oppressive and dumb. I'll vote for Harris. So, the idea that my point is "MAGGAt inspired" is ugly invective and hypocrisy. But that's neither here or there. My observation that this debate is, ultimately, about money stands. Will you or won't you address that reality? If healthcare were truly free, nobody would care if it was given away to immigrants.

If your response is that morality matters more than money, you're a poor student of history and human nature. Even the moral must pay their bills at the end of the day. If your point is that I'm the asshole for pointing out your flaw, grow up. If your point is that people are suffering while others profit, you're just describing capitalism. We ain't changing any of it.




If the law demands your charity, then it's not your and your "colleague's" magnanimity at play. So, why was it so important to pretend you were being virtuous? Rather than say you'd never refuse them care, why not say you're required to administer it? I think your ego is a factor in your adamant denial of my position.

I feel like I'm having a discussion with a moving target.

I guess you’re not a lost cause after all. You have said you won’t vote for the felon. That’s a good start.
Now, I don’t provide medical care to those who can’t afford it to be viewed as somehow virtuous or because I’m required to (which at times I am). I do it because it’s the right thing to do. I have been very fortunate (blessed, if you will) and I believe strongly that it’s important to give back to the society that has given me so much. I volunteered to care for low income children for five years at a local free clinic for mostly immigrant families and I’ve been to Kenya on a medical mission to do what I can to help kids there. Not to dwell on this but I have volunteered to help others in other circumstances as well.
I consider it to be totally unethical to choose not to help those who need medical care but can’t afford it. I pay for that care. So do you through higher health insurance premiums. It would be much better if everyone had access to the care they need as occurs in most civilized countries.
As for people here illegally my opinion is that they deserve to be stabilized medically-then promptly sent back to wherever it is they came from. No one in their right mind would deny any acutely ill person the care they need.

 

[Ethel2]

OK, but the undercurrent is free shit for non-citizens while actual citizens pay for it. I saw on the news that the wave of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into my city, Denver, cost Denver Health tens of millions of dollars in less than a year. Those weren't DACA anything. Must I be OK with the real world consequences of that? Is your sense of charity so large and perfect that it should drown the privileged voices of the tax payers? I can't state enough how wrong it feels to ignore the obvious toll the endless wave of desperate humanity has on our civil systems and the left, to their detriment, persist in the delusion that the country is better for it.

Please, as someone I respect, convince me it doesn't matter.

What exactly do you propose to do with someone here illegally who has a medical emergency-a heart attack, appendicitis etc? Send them out on the street to die? Really?

 

[ClaraD]

OK, but the undercurrent is free shit for non-citizens while actual citizens pay for it. I saw on the news that the wave of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into my city, Denver, cost Denver Health tens of millions of dollars in less than a year. Those weren't DACA anything. Must I be OK with the real world consequences of that? Is your sense of charity so large and perfect that it should drown the privileged voices of the tax payers? I can't state enough how wrong it feels to ignore the obvious toll the endless wave of desperate humanity has on our civil systems and the left, to their detriment, persist in the delusion that the country is better for it.

Please, as someone I respect, convince me it doesn't matter.

I’ve been to Denver many times. The homeless walking the streets aren’t illegal immigrants. In health care they don’t ask your legal status so how do you know who cost what?

 

[ClaraD]

OK, but the undercurrent is free shit for non-citizens while actual citizens pay for it. I saw on the news that the wave of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into my city, Denver, cost Denver Health tens of millions of dollars in less than a year. Those weren't DACA anything. Must I be OK with the real world consequences of that? Is your sense of charity so large and perfect that it should drown the privileged voices of the tax payers? I can't state enough how wrong it feels to ignore the obvious toll the endless wave of desperate humanity has on our civil systems and the left, to their detriment, persist in the delusion that the country is better for it.

Please, as someone I respect, convince me it doesn't matter.

What free shit and what do we pay for that they don’t? I think you believe a lot of untrue myths

 

[Pyrite]

Can’t wait to see you pick and choose which EOs should and should not be followed.

It's simple: EOs issued by Republican Presidents are legit and should be obeyed.

On the other hand, EOs issued by Democratic Presidents are generally not legit and do not have be obeyed.

 

[Metric Mouse]

We’ve managed to afford to wage war around the globe for decades. We’ve managed to pay for billions of dollars in corporate bailouts providing more than a few golden parachutes to the top fraction of the 1%.

We sure don’t have a problem financing those sort of things off the backs of American taxpayers…so I find it amusing when there are immediate objections to basic humanitarian objectives

Lots of people objected to the United States waging war.

Lots of people objected to bailouts.

Many people had problems with those - why do you say that we didn't?

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

Really?
Is your post that dumb?
I’m not referring to illegal folks here who traveled while acutely ill. Most of them likely wouldn’t have survived. I’m referring to those who got sick while they were here. Should we refuse to help them simply because the are here illegally?
Did I post anything a”what dems have done “? I’m not advocating for providing endless medical care for people here illegally. But you can’t deny emergency medical care to another human.

No, you just don't get it !
Those CRIMINAL who came to America illegally SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE SO !!!!
Them being here IS NOT OUR FAULT !!! So if they get Sick that's on them ! Stay home !
Again "YOU DUMBASS Libs" are too dense to realize that the Criminal policies of the DNC is being
put on YOUR HEAD !!!
Let me try again!

Real Time US National Debt Clock | USA Debt Clock.com

United States National Debt Clock

usadebtclock.com

 

[NoMoreDems-Reps]

DACA holders aren't illegal immigrants, educate yourself.

Yes they are ! That "D" in DACA has ended and the Criminal Politicians who've created that ILLEGAL POLICY DID NOT resolve it on time making everyone criminal !